A portion of muslim women choose to wear a veil. They do this entirely of their own free will as an expression of their identity and in keeping with their religious and social beliefs about public modesty.

And they are quite rightly insulted by the notion that they are poor feeble women who must be rescued from their oppressive boorish misogynist husbands by the wise and noble non-muslim westerners.

Now I fully accept that it is possible that a portion of Muslim women in the UK do feel forced to wear veils and do feel oppressed by it. But surely that is an entirely different issue?

I'm quite sure there are also women in the UK who feel forced into getting a piercing or a tattoo, whose husbands force them to wear short skirts, or stay at home while he goes to the pub every night. But no one suggests that banning piercings, tattoos, short skirts or pubs is the answer!

I really don't see how introducing a law which says "You need to wear less clothes so we can objectify you properly" would be a step forward for feminism or freedom.

I'm quite sure there are also women in the UK who feel forced into getting a piercing or a tattoo, whose husbands force them to wear short skirts, or stay at home while he goes to the pub every night. But no one suggests that banning piercings, tattoos, short skirts or pubs is the answer!

That's a good point, I guess we're focussing on the symptom, rather than the cause, and also making an assumption that there is a cause that needs to be tackled, when in reality there may not be.

I think it is such an emoptive issue because of the bluntness and obvious segregation of the clothing. Not segregation between genders or cultures, but between the person wearing it and the outside world. The communication barrier the veil creates makes it more emotive than any other kind of clothing and this does more to foster fear/suspicion than anything else.

Just musing
and maybe got my facts all wrong but....
In the 60s weren't bras identified by feminists as implements of sexism for repressing women everywhere? hence bra burning and more than usual jiggling went on for a while until women decided "actually you know what they're not a bad idea"?

That's a different issue altogether.

That told me!

kind of is tho isn't it. As junkyard said we've all (mostly, ignoring that kilt stuff) been indoctrinated that skirts are not acceptable leg/bottom wear for blokes. We're all conditioned. Apparently you can't objectively critique other cultures, your own bias will always skew it.

first rule of anthropology that DONK or else you end up saying things like this about cultures you know little about.

Burkas are an over-zealous interpretation of the Quran anyway, deliberately so in order for the men to continue to subjugate the women in Islamic countries - so I'm all for banning them.

Re bra burning at a Miss World pageant where they threw female products [ false eyelashes. hair curlers etc- stuff associated with beauty] into a trash can including bras to burn - mimicking vietnam draft dodgers burning their draft cards. The police stopped them actually having a fire. I dont know if it ever happened but it must have somewhere.

kind of is tho isn't it. As junkyard said we've all (mostly, ignoring that kilt stuff) been indoctrinated that skirts are not acceptable leg/bottom wear for blokes. We're all conditioned. Apparently you can't objectively critique other cultures, your own bias will always skew it.

All true DONK. I think though that you can objectively critique other cultures if you're aware of your own bias and if you're willing to have your views challenged by those who have a different perspective. Much like this thread really.

When I gave you a hypothetical example of a Pakistani being called a "Paki" by his mates and then claiming he was fine with it you responded with something along the lines that you would have no problem etc as it was his choice. I on the other hand would find that unacceptable in spite of the fact that he doesnt.
This is an important point and I went on to add later hypothetical examples of victims of forced marriage who thought arranged marriages were a good thing.
The question is if these were real examples (and I could find actual ones) would you think that both practices were acceptable? I for one would not.
Would we find female genital mutilation acceptable if we found victims of it who did?

It would be better if you could explain how you telling them how to dress is the best response to someone telling them how to dress. Can you do that please whilst explaining how it is not a double standard? Should be entertaining.

Well at least you are removing the force/compulsion aspect of your previous argument which you accused me of (but found no evidence of!) but you are creating another straw man. Are you saying that me wanting to remove the compulsion and pressure that women feel to wear a body/face covering is on a equal par with those wanting to force it upon them? Are you saying they are equal evils?

if the veil is banned how are they not forced

I didnt say ban it.

And in the interest of not fueling the argument that you werent creating alligning me with the EDL is a really cheap trick but if thats the way you debate.

Okay. Many others have mentioned banning though. If you don't think a ban is the answer (and I don't) then how do you want "to remove the compulsion and pressure that women feel to wear a body/face covering"? And what about those women that don't feel forced and wear it through free choice?

And there are lots of christians who borrow or lend, covet their neighbour's wives, etc etc. But what's your point exactly? Some people who claim to be religious suck at it, therefore...

Pah, that's Old Testament stuff. Christians don't really have to worry about it, that's why we can eat pork, seafood, and arguably play backdoor games without worrying about not getting into heaven. The only real sin is denying the Trinity which is why Jehovah's Witnesses will all burn for eternity.

The poor Muslims and Jews take the OT rules a lot more seriously; The Jews just denied the NT and the Muslims re-wrote the whole lot.

There is no religious requirement to wear the Burqa. The majority of women in Muslim countries don't wear the Burqa. Covering the face is a mere interpretation of the Koran in the same way that all Christians don't lead a life of celibacy like Nuns and Priests do. So should they choose to wear the Burqa then they should be allowed to, BUT if they do then they shouldn't complain when asked to remove it for the purposes of law and security. Though this should be done respectfully and discretely as a mark of basic respect for a fellow persons belief's. simple.

BUT if they do then they shouldn't complain when asked to remove it for the purposes of law and security

airport security/ID purposes etc as has been mentioned this is already done, just wondering, I seem to recall on certain demonstrations people with scarves/balaclavas/hoodies obscuring their face police were getting the people to remove them. Do I remember right and if so on what grounds did they request/enforce this? Actually thinking about it it may have been during the riots, when police saw a gang of people walking passed they asked them to uncover their face for the cameras they had setup.

Also has anyone tried getting through passport control with a none cultural/quasi-religious face covering? (whilst obviously agreeing to remove for purposes of identification)

I hope I'm wrong but I kinda get the feeling that me walking around an airport with a balaclava on might cause a bit of bother. Airport security IME aren't blessed with much of a sense of humour. If we've agreed it's not religious or necessary and it is a muslim woman's choice to wear a niqab - and is allowed to - then surely anyone else can cover their face if they so choose for whatever reason.
Whilst morally it's more complex I think legally "for shits and giggles" is probably about as good a reason as "it's part of my culture/religion"